Creshull v. Mullen

Headnote

The foBowing is the mem. of opinion herein :

“ On the 21st of July, 1886, the plaintiff gave notice to the clerk of the City Court of Brooklyn, and to Messrs. Morris & Pearsall, attorneys for the defendant, that she appealed to the Court of Appeals from an order of the General Term of the City Court, which affirmed an order of the Special Term of that court, granting a motion made by the defendant for a new taxation of costs. It was made, as the order recites, upon all the papers in the action, and directed that the defendant be allowed, in addition to her costs as taxed by the clerk, $30 for a trial fee, and $10 additional, because the trial occupied more than two days. The plaintiff appealed to the General Term, where the order was affirmed.

“The papers referred to in the notice and in the Special Term order as papers in the case, are not before us. It appears, however, as claimed by the appellant, that on the 26th of May, 1886, before the hearing of the appeal at General Term, a brief memorandum containing an extract from the judgment and the defendants’ costs as taxed by the clerk, was indorsed by the attorneys for the respective parties in these words : ‘ Approved and assented to, as and for papers on appeal.’ The appellant here was the appellant in the court below. The memorandum may be presumed, therefore, to contain all that in the opinion of her counsel was material to present the question intended to be raised. It shows nothing which, standing by itself, or which, with reference to any other matter in the- appeal book, makes the objection of the

appellant intelligible. We discover no reason why the order appealed from should not be affirmed.

“ Order affirmed, with costs of appeal in this court to be paid by the appellant to the respondents’ attorney.”